Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for oncologic reconstruction of the proximal humerus: a systematic review

Proximal Humerus Reconstruction for Bone Sarcomas: A Critical Analysis

» The proximal humerus is a common location for primary bone tumors, and the goal of surgical care is to obtain a negative margin resection and subsequent reconstruction of the proximal humerus to allow for shoulder function.» The current evidence supports the use of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty over hemiarthroplasty when reconstructing the proximal humerus after resection of a bone sarcoma if the axillary nerve can be preserved.» There is a lack of high-quality data comparing allograft prosthetic composite (APC) with endoprosthetic reconstruction of the proximal humerus.» Reverse APC should be performed using an allograft with donor rotator cuff to allow for soft-tissue repair of the donor and host rotator cuff, leading to improvements in shoulder motion compared with an endoprosthesis.

Poor evidence is used to support commercial payers' coverage policies for shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The incidence of shoulder arthroplasty has continued to increase over the past decade. In response, commercial payers have implemented strategies to control the medical requirement of these surgeries in attempt to contain the growing costs. For example, most payers require a prolonged trial of conservative management prior to shoulder arthroplasty for patients who may otherwise be surgical candidates. However, little is known regarding the evidence used to support these indications. The purpose of this study was to analyze the references used by commercial payers to substantiate their coverage policies for shoulder arthroplasty.

METHODS

Ten of the leading commercial payers for total shoulder arthroplasty were identified. Publicly available coverage policies were searched on the internet or requested directly from the payer via email or telephone. Cited references were reviewed independently by two authors for type of document, level of evidence, and mention of the efficacy of conservative management.

RESULTS

A total of 5 coverage policies were obtained with 118 references. The most common reference type was primary journal article (n = 70; 59.3%) followed by review or expert opinion articles (n = 35; 29.7%). Most references were of level IV evidence (n = 60; 52.2%), with only 6 (5.2%) of level I or II evidence. Only 4 (3.5%) references mentioned the efficacy of conservative management in patients who may be candidates for shoulder arthroplasty.

CONCLUSION

The majority of references used to substantiate the coverage policies for shoulder arthroplasty among major commercial payers within the United States are of low scientific evidence and fail to demonstrate the success of required nonoperative intervention strategies. Our study underscores the need for high-quality, comparative trials that evaluate the outcomes of conservative management vs. shoulder arthroplasty in end-stage glenohumeral osteoarthritis patients in order to determine the most cost-effective treatment algorithm.

Reconstruction with a double-constrained implant design after complex shoulder extra-articular resection

BACKGROUND

Approximately, one-third of patients with tumors of proximal humerus will require an extra-articular resection to achieve oncologic margins. This procedure yields poor functional outcomes with a considerable rate of revisions. Unconstrained implants are prone to instability hindering also function of the elbow and hand, whereas constrained shoulder reconstructions suffer from early aseptic loosening of the glenoid component due to bone overload. The purpose of this study was to develop a constrained implant suitable for extra-articular resection with loss of function in deltoid and rotator cuff, which would provide both stability and passive motion, whilst also decreasing the risk of aseptic loosening of the glenoid component.

METHODS

In cooperation with Czech Technical University in Prague, we devised an implant consisting of two constrained joints in series connected by a dumbbell piece. The biomechanical analysis showed a reduction of load transfer to the glenoid component with a torque of 8.6 Nm capable of generating an 865-N pulling force on bone screw to just 0.07 Nm, hence shielding the glenoid component from undesired forces and decreasing the risk of aseptic loosening. Three patients with extra-articular resection with a total loss of function of both rotator cuff and deltoid muscle received this type of reconstruction. The average follow-up was 16 months.

RESULTS

The surgical technique is straightforward. The surgery took 175 min on average with average blood loss of 516 ml. There were no surgical- or implant-related complications. All three patients were pain-free and had a stable shoulder joint after the reconstruction. All had fully functional elbow, wrist, and hand joints. The average Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score was 21/30 (70%). All patients were pleased with the results.

CONCLUSION

The presented innovative implant design has demonstrated to be a promising alternative for reconstruction in these challenging cases.

Functional Outcomes and Shoulder Instability in Reconstruction of Proximal Humerus Metastases

(1) Background: Some of the goals of orthopedic surgical oncology are saving limbs and function. The humerus is the third most frequent site in primary tumors and one of the most involved sites for metastases. Prosthetic replacement with modular megaprosthesis is one of the treatment choices, but there are several types of complications, such as problems with function and pain. The aim of our study is to assess functional outcomes and shoulder instability in the reconstruction of proximal humerus metastases. (2) Methods: This is a retrospective observational study. Twenty-eight patients, with proximal humerus metastases, admitted to the department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology of our University Hospital between 2014 and 2022 were recruited. Each patient underwent resection and prosthetic replacement surgery with modular megaprosthesis. Clinical evaluation was assessed through MSTS score, WOSI index, and DASH score. (3) Results: Twenty patients were included in the study. Fairly good results, especially regarding pain, function, and emotional acceptance, were obtained in all three tests: DASH, MSTS, and WOSI. Patients who reported shoulder instability actually have worse outcomes than those who report having stable shoulders. In addition, patients with a resection >10 cm have worse outcomes than those who had a resection of 10 cm. No significant differences were found between the deltopectoral approach group and the lateral approach group. (4) Conclusions: Reconstructive surgery with megaprosthesis of the proximal humerus in patients with metastases can be considered a treatment option, especially in patients with pathological fractures or injuries with a high risk of fracture and good life expectancy. This study shows how this type of surgery affects instability, but in terms of functionality, pain, and patient satisfaction, it gives satisfactory results.

Greater Tuberosity Fractures after RTSA: A Matched Group Analysis

Periprosthetic fractures, such as acromial and spine fractures, are known complications following implantation of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). The entity of greater tuberosity fractures (GTF) has rarely been studied in the literature. The purpose of this study was to analyze the outcome of postoperative greater tuberosity fractures after RTSA compared to a matched control group. The main findings of this study are that a GTF after RTSA is associated with worse clinical outcome scores (mean absolute CS 50 ± 19 (p = 0.032); SSV 63% ± 26 (p = 0.022); mean force 1 kg ± 2 kg (p = 0.044)) compared with the control group (mean absolute CS 62 ± 21; SSV 77% ± 29; mean force 2 kg ± 2 kg). In terms of postoperative range of motion, the fracture group was significantly worse in terms of external rotation (17° ± 19° vs. 30° ± 19° (p = 0.029)). Internal rotation, flexion, as well as abduction of the shoulder appear to be unaffected (internal rotation GTF 4 ± 2, control group 5 ± 3 (p = 0.138); flexion GTF 102° ± 28°, control group 114° ± 27° (p = 0.160); abduction GTF 109° ± 42°, control group 120° ± 39° (p = 0.317)).

[Humeral bone defects in revision shoulder arthroplasty]

BACKGROUND

Revision shoulder arthroplasty is mainly performed with reverse TSA and should consider proper adjustment of the length and the amount of bone loss in humeral reconstruction. Whilst epi-/metaphyseal bone loss can mostly be compensated easily by stemmed standard implants, advanced bone loss exceeding 2° requires the support of longer revision stems.

EXTENSIVE HUMERAL BONE LOSS

Cementless fixation in the intact diaphyseal humerus is recommended in bone loss exceeding 2°, preferably with modular revision systems, because cemented reverse revision stems have higher loosening rates in the mid to long-term follow-up. In cases of advanced bone loss 3°-4° (more than 6-7 cm), structural humeral allografts should be considered to prevent instability and early loosening. Unfortunately, the access to fresh frozen allografts is very limited due to regulation of the German government in contrast to the situation in the US or Switzerland. Reverse tumor arthroplasty is an option with a higher complication rate and inferior function even when polyester mesh is used for ingrowth of soft tissues.

DISTINCT DIAPHYSEAL DEFECTS

In bone loss 4°-5° the minimal anchorage length is mostly critical due to the curvature of the medullary canal. The fixation of a revision stem is only possible when at least 2-3 widths of the diaphyseal diameter are available. Custom-made implants with flanges or distal locking screws, or bipolar tumor arthroplasty may be required. Additionally, strut allografts can be useful to achieve stable fixation. Two-stage biological reconstruction in impaction-bone-graft or the Masquelet technique are rarely used as a salvage procedure.

Function and return to sports after proximal humeral replacement in patients with primary bone sarcoma

BACKGROUND

Improved patient and limb survival rates have led to an increased interest in the functional outcome and return to sports of patients undergoing megaprosthetic reconstruction in musculoskeletal oncology. This study evaluates the functional outcome and postoperatively performed level of sports in patients undergoing proximal humeral replacement (PHR) following resection of a primary bone sarcoma and identifies potential beneficial and limiting factors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 2007 and 2020, a total of 606 patients underwent resection of a primary bone sarcoma and reconstruction with a single-design modular implant. For 112 (18%) patients, the location of the tumour was the proximal humerus. Exclusion criteria were death (n = 65), patients living overseas (n = 8), and subsequent amputation (n = 1), leaving 38 patients for evaluation, of whom 32 were available for the study (13 women, median age 42 years). Clinical data regarding oncological and surgical treatment as well as subsequent complications were obtained from the patients' electronic medical records. Functional outcome was determined using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score (MSTS) and Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) as well as the Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV). Return to sports was assessed using the Tegner Activity Score (TS) and the modified Weighted Activity Score (WAS).

RESULTS

At the last follow-up after a median of 30 months (IQR 22-58), median MSTS was 18 (IQR 12-24), median TESS was 80% (IQR 69-87), median SSV was 35% (IQR 10-58), median TS was 5 (IQR 4-6) and median WAS was 5 (IQR 0-10). Preservation of the axillary nerve, a reverse shoulder reconstruction and a WAS of > 10 prior to surgery were associated with better functional outcome and return to sports activity scores.

CONCLUSION

Following PHR, good to excellent functional outcomes are possible, and patients regularly return to participate in sports activities-most commonly in low-impact types of sports, but some individuals are even able to participate in high-impact sports activities.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Early functional and therapeutic effect of reversed tumour shoulder prosthesis reconstruction after proximal humerus tumour resection

Introduction

Reconstruction of proximal humeral tumours after resection is still controversial. And there are few articles describing oncology patients' postoperative function after reversed tumour shoulder prosthesis reconstruction. We investigated the functional results of patients who underwent reversed tumour shoulder prosthesis, including those who did not preserve the deltoid ending point.

Patients and methods

We retrospectively evaluated 16 patients with proximal humerus tumours who had undergone reversed tumour shoulder prosthesis. All patients underwent type Malawer I proximal humeral resection surgery and standard reverse tumour shoulder arthroplasty with a modular reverse shoulder prosthesis. We sutured the severed end of the deltoid to the brachialis muscle using the artificial patch for patients who had their deltoid ending point resected. Patients are rehabilitated and followed up according to our instructions.

Result

All patients were followed up for a mean of 27.4 months (13–59), and their mean age was 45.9 years (15–74). The mean length of the humeral resection was 11.6 cm (5–15). The mean shoulder mobility was 122° (82°–180°) in forward flexion; 39° (31°–45°) in posterior extension; 102° (65°–172°) in abduction; 43° (30°–60°) in external rotation; 83° (61°–90°) in internal rotation, and a mean MSTS score of 77.9% (63.3%–93.3%). The mean DASH score was 20.8 (2.5–35.8). The mean VAS score was 0.9. For patients who had their deltoid ending point resected, the mean length of the humeral resection was 14.0 cm; the mean shoulder mobility was 109° in forward flexion; 37.8° in posterior extension; 102.0° in abduction; 38.3° in external rotation; 86.3° in internal rotation, and the mean MSTS score was 78.8%; the mean DASH score was 21.6; the mean VAS score was 1.0.

Conclusion

Patients who underwent reverse tumour shoulder arthroplasty can achieve good early postoperative function, survival rate and low complication rate. In addition, patients who had their deltoid ending point removed also obtained good function after particular reconstruction.